What if straight people had civil unions?

Yep. In California, a gay "marriage" was identical to a gay civil union. And yet the court held that they had a constitutional right to the word. Social engineering in all its glory, seeking to win more "respect" for the gays from the rest of society and a shred of "dignity" for themselves.

 

It doesn't effect you in any way what so ever.

 

procreation is not a valid reason to deny same sex couples the right to marriage, since the ability or intention to procreate is not required in order to marry.

 

and just one more reason why govt should not be involved at all.

 

I agree, but that isn't realistic. As long as they are involved, same sex couples must have the same rights.

 

Perfectly valid in 44 states. Valid in the other 6 until 2004.

 

Then the solution is simple....ignore it.

 

and at one point in their lives the Irish thought nothing could be done about being kidnapped and brought as slaves to Barbados and other Caribbean islands.

never say never and IMHO it is the only fair and Constitutionally supported means. Creating rights for people based upon how they engage in sexual relations has no place in the Constitution

 

Except in states where people like you have re-defined tradtional marriage, by adding exclusions for gays, where before, they were implied. and not recognized legally because the law doesn't include what people think it did.

Blah buh blah buh blah.....balderdash!....poppycock!!!!

No, we want you to stop thinking about gay relationships

 

nope. not valid in any of the 50 states.

 

you don't need to have sexual relations in order to marry.

 

So full of it. No state has an"'exclusions for gays". Im sure yoiu can repeat the BS 10 more times but why dont you just drag your mouse across the text of the state statute, copy it and post it here. Show us you are not full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Just one of the 44

 

Nope. Not valid in that state either. Thats why there isn't a single state that requires the ability or intention to procreate in order to marry.

 

No one has claimed that any state has any such requirement. It is the justification that is used in 44 states to limit marriage to a man and a woman. PROCREATION! Only women give birth and only men father children. Man/Woman, Husband/Wife and Father/Mother. Two parts of the whole.

 

straights have what is called common law "marriage" ~ the equivalent of civil union & this goes back to time immemorial

 

Your argument is entirely dependant upon there being a requirement of procreation. No such requirement exists which is why your argument is idiotic, and losing in federal court

 

The type of bigotry and oppression you love to perpetuate does so through the state constitutions that have added bans for gay marriage.

Why can't you just let it go?.....why are you pathalogically obssessed with gay sex?

 

What absurd hyperbole. Its BIOLOGY!

 

Obviously you dont even comprehend my argument. It is dependant upon the potential of procreation that only exist between a man and a woman.

 

of course I conprehend it. that's why I keep refuting it.

nonsense. your argument is dependant upon there being a REQIREMENT of procreation. Otherwise, you can't deny marriage to one couple that has no potential of procreation, while allowing another couple that has no potential of procreation to marry.

 

Too bad biology and potential for procreation don't have much to do with parental rights and responsibility. It's also too bad that the needs and uses for marriage extend well beyond the point of procreation. you focus in that one point as though it's the be-all, end-all of consideration.

 

Of course!

 

You've been told numerous times (and have been shown) that your argument SUCKS. You cannot justify what your overall premise is suggesting.

People really shouldn't argue with you about it; but I think it is good that visitors here get to see how wrong you are, as others essentially bat-down the BS you keep spouting.

Procreation trumps gay marriage... LOL!!!

 

No, you simply proclaim, over and over again that you have refuted the argument

Maybe "you can't" if you dont want to contradict your silly logic, but you can without violating the constitutional requirements of equal protection.

Thats how you refute an argument, not with personal opinion but instead factual evidence.